So, I was listening to some one give investment advice last week and he was talking about the lack of dividends being paid by publicly traded companies. I thought about this, and decided to take a quick look at a company that just filed bankruptcy. It's stock is trading at around a $1.20. In 2014 it was valued at around $245 dollars. That year it appears it paid a dividend of 34 cents, or about .01%, which was about its yearly average. Where did all the wealth of this company go, and was it ever real, since its expected liquidation value must be fairly equal to todays value?

If we take the opinion that a large majority of companies will, in an ever changing environment, eventually dissolve, and if they never payout a market rate dividend, are they nothing more than a Ponzi scheme, with the last holder of stock taking the hit?

Thats how it all works now. The whole market is rigged that way.

Nothing is real, the retireies will be holding the bag when the smoke clears, 401ks and pensions are locked into he market, and will be dissolved when this is over.

Reality...... like a good woodknock or house slap..... A figment of your imagination

Look at how long it took MSFT to finally pay a dividend, after holding 40 billion in cash for a decade or more.

For awhile now the market "experts" think that Microsoft should invest less in R and D and pay bigger dividends.

8 year MSFT FTE veteran in R&D....in my past life. MS needs spin off some dead wood and be broken up into several smaller entities. They hold all that cash because they can and mostly as a big "F You!" to Wall Street. Wall street HATES it when they can't sink their grimy claws into a company and then lead them about the nose. Good for MSFT.

There is another thread talking about railroad safety. The old SP, in order to maintain dividends, did not do necessary line maintenance and invest in rolling stock and locomotives. Came a boom in business (nationally) and they fell apart. What is the job of a business? To generate dividends or ensure that the business runs well? At some point, that choice (like conservation/ESA) must be made.

Yes to both of these.

Fish on...

Todd

I think the job a business is to generate profit in a manner than insures future profit, and that the value of the business should be based off profit and hard assets. The issue is not so much with the companies and how they act, but how the market rates and values the companies.

Totally agree. It's a shell game to get rich and the Wall Street boys are VERY good at it. See Pets.com as the classic example. The onus is on the individual investor to remove the wheat from the chaff and invest in good companies with real assets. If the stock is a .com or is a "flavor of the day" pick - be wary and do your homework. People wanna get rich right now and once you hear about it, its already too late. Blue chips with assets for solid long, term sustainable growth for this guy. I won't get rich overnight, but I won't get broken either. It's all about our individual comfort levels and ability to absorb risk. I don't have much to start with, so I'll be damned if I am going to let some prick hedge fund manager get even richer of my hard earned greenbacks.

I recommend hookers and blow before blue chips stocks.

My focus is more on the short term.

FIFY

I laffed.

A quality Zzzzzzzzzzzzzing !!!!!!